On the basis that his defense doesn't exist against Power Forwards and the fact that he doesn't play like a 4... And you fail to mention that (as was brought up in the thread) Anthony Mason played Small Forward for many a team, including those coached by Van Gundy/Pat Riley.
Who would have bumped him to the bench? Brooks? Please. They would be competing for the starting job and Sessions would win. And "we are not going to start 2 point guards," but apparently we are going to start 3 Small Forwards? Noone has answered the biggest question. Where is Ariza going to play? He told Cleveland to kiss off when they refused to offer him a starting job. That would have been his 2nd best chance to win another ring. So that speaks volumes about what The Rockets offered him and what his agenda is. Are they going to bump "Forum-Fan-Favorite" Luis Scola to the bench and play him at PF? McGrady is not coming off the bench if he is healthy enough to play at 50% of what he used to be. Battier coming off the bench would be a suprise move for Adelman.
I think Battier will come off the bench. And against teams that play small, its possible we a starting lineup of Brooks, McGrady, Ariza, Battier, and Scola. Oh, and Anthony Mason could handle the ball like a guard. Scola and his high dribble would be a disaster away from the paint.
As of right now, our starting line up is probably C- Andersen (Maybe Hayes until Andersen gets use to new offense) PF- Scola SF- Ariza SG- Battier (McGrady when he's healthy, Battier off the bench) PG- Brooks Maybe vs smaller teams C- Scola PF- Battier SF- Ariza SG- McGrady PG- Brooks I'd like to see us try C- Scola PF- Landry SF- Battier SG- Ariza PG- McGrady or C- Hayes PF- Pops SF- Budinger SG- Brooks PG- Lowry
History shows us that Rick Adelman isn't a experimental coach, unlike the mad Doctor Van Gundy. If he was, he would have started Chuck Hayes over Scola whenever they played teams with super-dominant 4's like Tim Duncan and Kevin Garnett. Infact, he wouldn't even yank Scola unless he was having a bad night on both ends. Adelman would let him wonder around in the backcourt on defense as long as he was hitting the open jumper. He was fine with Rafer Alson as the starter and even came out and said as much in interviews after he was traded.
For the last time: Scola is NOT like Anthony Mason. Not at all! Of all your terrible ideas, arguments and threads created -- this suggestion might be the worst of them all....and that's saying a lot.
Other than the ballhandling, he is a lot like Mason. He can't jump really high, but has a lot of crafty little layup moves in the paint. He has mastered the art of holding other players down to get rebounds. And he can hit the 12-14 jumpers. And they both shoot a kind of knuckle ball. Well, that and of course Anthony Mason could defend at a level higher than high school basketball
Anthony mason was a terrefic point forward especially with the bucks. he had terrrefic court vision. scola is'nt aywhere near as good. what a silly comparison.
Is this sarcasm? Blaming one of Adelman's strong points, which is Van Gundy's weak point? You say other than ball handling, then in the next sentence you post another difference. Athleticism and ball handling goes to Mason no doubt. Basketball IQ goes to Scola. Scola likes to post, as in Mason plays more like a forward. This isn't even a close of a comparison. It'll be better to say Brooks plays like Lowry than Scola and Mason are similar.
The art of holding other players down to get rebounds? I don't have a clue what this means. Are you talking about boxing out? Jargon aside, I would be utterly shocked if you could find another poster that agrees with your Scola/Mason comparison.
For one thing, the Scola/Mason comparison was brought up simply to prove that coaches had/have played Power Forwards at Small Forward. As usual, you guys go off on a tangent instead of addressing the actual situation. Scola couldn't possibly be any more mediocre at Small Forward than he is at Power Forward. His defense is atrocious at Power Forward, it would be atrocious at Small Forward. The same shots he gets at Power Forward, he would get at Small Forward. Noone said anything about him being a Point Forward except you guys. And it's super lame to bring up an old post just to get off the subject of your Ariza vs Session's argument which you obviously ran out of ammo on.
Wow burnnotice you make so many weird statements I don't know where to start. However let me focus on two things: *Why do you assume Sessions is miles better than Brooks? Sessions is just getting used to the league, but Brooks is as well, last season was his first starting, and he only had roughly half a season as the starter, and they are both roughly the same age. Brooks is faster, and he is a more dynamic scorer than Mr. Career 22% From the Three. "Sessions would win"? With that crappy 3 pt percentage? I don't think so lol. *Scola would suck at the sf position. He doesn't have ball handling skills needed for the spot. He can hit mid-range jumpshots but when does mean he's perimeter oriented? Scola is a versatile PF, needs works defensively and not that athletic but he can do everything you need on offense (low-post, face-up, passing).
I'm for any move that gets us taller and more athletic. A frontcourt rotation of Andersen/Hayes and Scola/Landry will get abused on a nightly basis.
I didn't say he was miles better, I simply said he would win out against Brooks. 3 point shooting could always be improved. I am more interested in the APG. Even during Brook's playoff push, he still only averaged over 3 APG while Sessions averaged 5.7 for the season. I just see Sessions as more of an Allen Iverson type of player who will get into the lane and wreak havoc, take bumps, and score from all over the court. He probably will never be a 40% 3 point shooter or a great mid-range guy. He is a scorer, with the ability to create opportunities for teammates when the defense collapses on him. Brooks is still undetermined, but I would say he is more of a speedy guy who gets his buckets when the offense breaks down and the defense loses sight of him. You have to admit, 5.7 APG on a bad team like The Bucks is impressive. A lot of their best guys were injured. Who was he dishing to?
McGrady is injured and may be traded next year and Artest left for the Lakers. This left a big hole in the rockets swing position for this season and next season. So you think T-Mac and Artest, should be replaced by Sessions and Bogans instead of Ariza?
There is a strategy called going for the best player available. Here is my question. When Yao comes back, who fits in better, Ariza or Sessions? If Aaron Brooks gets injured, do you feel comfortable with Lowry starting for 18-25 game stretches? If McGrady comes back healthy and playing well, would you rather have McGrady/Ariza or McGrady/Battier as the starter? McGrady was always either going to be available as an asset to The Rockets. He will either come back and play well or his expiring contract will bring in someone of value, or both. Either way, The Rockets surely didn't grab Ariza to replace McGrady. Artest, maybe, but not McGrady.
